eugenics?.... dunno about all that.
Capitalism has a large aspect of social darwinism in it, in that the fit prosper and the unfit fall by the wayside. Fascism takes this to an extreme. Communism is the exact opposite of this. Fascism=/dictatorship, dictatorial power is a part of a fascistic government but is hardly the defining characteristic. Fascism is heavily nationalistic and rabidly corporate, communism being inherently based in class can be, by definition, neither of those things.
I'm not arguing that you're wrong in your assessment of leadership tactics by individuals, I'm saying to define Stalin or Mao as communistic or Hitler as socialistic is a misrepresentation of communist, socialist, and fascist ideals.
But you have hit on the theme of what I was getting at, and the concept behind the book I just read.
Communism IN THEORY attempts to create the proletariat, the masses, the equality that it's adherents crave.
Yet, IN PRACTICE, it simply creates a DIFFERENT elite, one chosen not by merit (or in some cases the ability to better navigate the system:)).
But rather it creates it's own elite in the form of the all important government position. So substitute the evil corporate ruling machine for the evil government ruling machine and you have a people no better off.
A people that still have a ruling class to be jealous of, and in most cases even more powerless to effect any change on their status within that system.
You are correct, but the comparison of the end result of the systems, as shown by the extreme examples of rulers such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. has merit and therefore is worthy of comparison and discussion.